2008 (9) TMI 804 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants win appeal on duty dispute due to limitation issue, Supreme Court sets aside order.

The Appellants availed credit based on a Bill of Entry, which was later disallowed by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). ... Demand - Limitation - Suppression of facts Issues involved: Availment of credit on the basis of Bill of Entry, disallowance of credit, penalty imposition, violation of Board's Circular, limitation period for demand of duty.Summary:1. Availment of credit and penalty imposition:The Appellants availed Credit of Rs. 2,81,619.00 vide Bill of Entry No. 232027 dated 30-9-2000, which was sold to another company. A show cause notice was issued proposing to disallow the credit and impose penalty. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. Contesting demand of duty and penalties:The Appellant contested the demand of duty and penalties on the grounds of merit and limitation. It was argued that the imported materials were accompanied by a valid duty paying document. The Appellant also contended that the demand of duty was barred by limitation, as there was no suppression of facts to evade payment. Reference was made to relevant legal decisions to support the arguments.3. Reiteration of findings by DR:The DR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and argued that the Appellants purchased the goods from a registered dealer, justifying the availment of credit. It was also mentioned that the Appellant had not disclosed the availment of credit based on the endorsed Bill of Entry, which was detected during an audit verification.4. Decision on limitation and suppression of facts:After examining the records, it was found that the Appellant availed credit based on the Bill of Entry, duly recorded in the Register. The show cause notice alleged violation of a Board's Circular and suppression of facts, but no material evidence of intent to evade duty payment was found. Citing legal precedents, it was concluded that the demand of duty was barred by limitation, and the impugned order was set aside.5. Conclusion:The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions were referenced to support the finding that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. As the demand of duty was found to be barred by limitation, the appeal was allowed on limitation grounds without delving into the merits of the case. The impugned order was set aside accordingly.